275 réponses à ce sujet

[ld1449]

AlanC9 wrote...

KENNY4753 wrote...

1) The moral conflict argument again. I've heard what you had to say about 500 times already. Find a new argument please.

If you're looking for a place where people don't stick with the same arguments.... you better find another board.

See there's a difference between people like me who repeat something again after visiting five threads or so when the subject comes up. And then there's Dre, who puts it on every post and brings it up on every thread like its a propaganda campaign.

[AlanC9]

KENNY4753 wrote...
2. So let me ask you this. Was doing all the loyalty missions in ME2 and getting all the upgrades for the suicide mission so everybody survives an easy way out. No, because you put the time in to do all of that.

Put in the time? Like it's a chore or something?

Dude... it's a game. If it's not fun to play you don't play less of it. You don't play it at all.

One of my big problems with ME3's design is that EMS and dialogue checks are implemented as completeness checks -- just playing the game more gets you more win, no matter what you do. This was bad in ME2, and bad in ME3.

Modifié par AlanC9, 02 octobre 2012 - 06:28 .

[AlanC9]

ld1449 wrote...

See there's a difference between people like me who repeat something again after visiting five threads or so when the subject comes up. And then there's Dre, who puts it on every post and brings it up on every thread like its a propaganda campaign.

Well, yeah, some of us do tend to overdo it a bit.

[AresKeith]

AlanC9 wrote...

KENNY4753 wrote...
2. So let me ask you this. Was doing all the loyalty missions in ME2 and getting all the upgrades for the suicide mission so everybody survives an easy way out. No, because you put the time in to do all of that.

Put in the time? Like it's a chore or something?

Dude... it's a game. If it's not fun to play you don't play less of it. You don't play it at all.

really?

[AlanC9]

Sure. What, you keep playing games you don't like playing?

[KENNY4753]

AlanC9 wrote...

KENNY4753 wrote...
2. So let me ask you this. Was doing all the loyalty missions in ME2 and getting all the upgrades for the suicide mission so everybody survives an easy way out. No, because you put the time in to do all of that.

Put in the time? Like it's a chore or something?

Dude... it's a game. If it's not fun to play you don't play less of it. You don't play it at all.

One of my big problems with ME3's design is that EMS and dialogue checks are implemented as completeness checks -- just playing the game more gets you more win, no matter what you do. This was bad in ME2, and bad in ME3.

You don't have to do all the loyalty missions or buy the upgrades. Yes it is a choice.

Modifié par KENNY4753, 02 octobre 2012 - 06:29 .

[AlanC9]

KENNY4753 wrote...

[You don't have to do all the loyalty missions or buy the upgrades. Yes it is a choice.

Didn't say it wasn't a choice. I'm just questioning the way you characterized that choice.

Just to clarify what I said above, ME3's conceptually a bit worse than ME2. ME2 can be fixed by forcing the REaper IFF mission immediately after Horizon. Then you can only do all the LMs if you put off the SM long enough for your crew to get juiced., which is an interesting RP choice. I don't see an easy way to fix ME3.

Modifié par AlanC9, 02 octobre 2012 - 06:32 .

[KENNY4753]

AlanC9 wrote...

KENNY4753 wrote...

[You don't have to do all the loyalty missions or buy the upgrades. Yes it is a choice.

Didn't say it wasn't a choice. I'm just questioning the way you characterized that choice.

You said chore in your post I thought you said choice my bad.

but still you do put in the time scanning planets to get the upgrades and detouring from your real mission by doing loyalty mission so that you can get the best ending (all squad mates survive). They reward you for doing all the missions and get all the upgrades to be fully prepared by letting your whole team live on a suicide mission. I am saying why not do that in ME3. If we take the time and spend the money to get all the dlc why not let us complete the crucible and get a good ending.

[AresKeith]

AlanC9 wrote...

Sure. What, you keep playing games you don't like playing?

he was just talking a way for him to like playing the game again, because we all love the ME series

[dreman9999]

Nightwriter wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

A being that tells you you have not time, and suppendly forces you to quickly pick something destroys the illusion of agency?

All right, look man. I don't find your opinions about the Catalyst terribly coherent in general, so I'm not sure how successful an exchange this is going to be.

First you say that because the Catalyst does not understand morality, there is no such thing as good or evil, and furthermore that this is the entire point of the series.

By this logic, if someone programs a machine to perform a task, and sending innocents to be raped is the most effective means of achieving that task, then that means there is nothing at all morally wrong with rape, and the moral/lesson of the entire rape cycle is that there is no such thing as good or evil because the machine doesn't recognize it.

And that is completely pants-on-head messed up.

Because in a situation like that, there is, quite frankly, no moral to the story whatsoever. No "point." No message. All we have learned is that there was no malicious intent on behalf of the perpetrator. It doesn't change the fact that the "rape" was wrong. It doesn't make it any less a crime. It just means that it was committed by an entity that doesn't know what crime is, and the moral tug-of-war is ruined as we learn that there was never actually anyone pulling on the other end, it had just gotten caught in a circular saw. The series spends 2.9 games blowing dramatic buildup into a giant balloon, and at the end, it pops the balloon with a pencil and says, "Go home, folks."

And before you start saying rape is too extreme an analogy, I should probably point out that huskification, indoctrination, and Reaperfication are actually pretty violative and rape-y.

Furthermore, you don't seem to understand that it is the Catalyst's amorality which makes it such a disappointing and fictionally undesirable invention. The Mass Effect series -- from start to finish -- has had an enormous amount of focus on morality. It's the primary source of all Mass Effect debate, after whose love interest is best. The moral objectionableness of the Reapers is so strong that organics and synthetics are allying for the first time in history to fight an ethical threat that even fleshless robots can recognize. They spend quite a long time building up the dramatic power of the cause. By defending the Catalyst's amorality, all I actually hear is, "Yeah well it was intentionally disappointing and fictionally undesirable, that was the whole point!" Trust me when I say that I already knew that what I dislike about the endings was intentional.

Now you seem to be saying that the illusion of self-determination can be broken by a time crunch. I have now lost all grasp of your position. All I am saying is that when the protagonist's victory choices are fed to him by the antagonist, it kills the sense of triumph. You counter with "what, the choice is bad just because you're told you gotta be quick about it?"

I just don't understand what you're trying to say at all.

"First you say that because the Catalyst does not understand morality, there is no such thing as good or evil, and furthermore that this is the entire point of the series. "


No that's not what I said. I did say it has no morality but it having no morality does not make morality pointless. What I said is the player can use any morality to stop it with the best out come as long as they use logic. 
What is said about the catalyst is that we can't say it's good or evil because it's in capable of understading morality.




"By this logic, if someone programs a machine to perform a task, and sending innocents to be raped is the most effective means of achieving that task, then that means there is nothing at all morally wrong with rape, and the moral/lesson of the entire rape cycle is that there is no such thing as good or evil because the machine doesn't recognize it."


What that means that the machine is not at fault for it's actions because it has no say to how it's programed. That does not mean we don't stop it. It just a concept of empathy. If a machine is a danger, do what ever youneed to do to stop it, but understand it's not at fault if it has no free will.





"Furthermore, you don't seem to understand that it is the Catalyst's amorality which makes it such a disappointing and fictionally undesirable invention. The Mass Effect series -- from start to finish -- has had an enormous amount of focus on morality. It's the primary source of all Mass Effect debate, after whose love interest is best. The moral objectionableness of the Reapers is so strong that organics and synthetics are allying for the first time in history to fight an ethical threat that even fleshless robots can recognize. They spend quite a long time building up the dramatic power of the cause. By defending the Catalyst's amorality, all I actually hear is, "Yeah well it wasintentionally disappointing and fictionally undesirable, that was the whole point!" Trust me when I say that I already knew that what I dislike about the endings was intentional. "

That does not mean every being fallows the same morality or has a morality. The series bring up the point that every being is different and has a differnt perspective. Having something with out a moral does not counter that concept.




"Now you seem to be saying that the illusion of self-determination can be broken by a time crunch. I have now lost all grasp of your position. All I am saying is that when the protagonist's victory choices are fed to him by the antagonist, it kills the sense of triumph. You counter with "what, the choice is bad just because you're told you gotta be quick about it?""

Free will is alway crippled by reality and the things we have to do to live. The issue here is not that I don't think the player should have free will, it's that the player should not control what events they face. No one has control of that. So what if the catalyst gives you a way of victory. You going to decline it because you have no control over it? We as being have no true control over the word around us except for ourselves. How we act. That is how life is. Life does not bend to our veiws or morality only which is why everyone say they don't like the ending because they are not given the choices they want is bs. Life is not about always getting what you want, it's about doing what you have to do. Heck, war is clearly about doing what you have to do. It's not about a sense of victory, it's about making sure the people you care about and galexy has a furture. That is about sacrific. So if you actions result in every character you care about living through this war, the reaper no longer destroy anything, and the galexy having a bright furture, does it matter how it's done in the extremes of war?

Modifié par dreman9999, 02 octobre 2012 - 06:46 .

[AlanC9]

Well, I don't really have anything to say about Puzzle Theory, except that Bio's never going to implement it.

[dreman9999]

KENNY4753 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
1. But moral conflict turn out to be true...Just saying.

2.That still is asking for an easy way out. You want a moral high ground to take to stop the reapers. War is not like that. Added, it's not the case the the crucible is incomplete. It's a case that what it did effect more than we planned.

3.The point was to stop the reaper. Destroying them is one way. Nothing in concet was ever stated you had to destroy them. Even Andersons speech in the end of ME1 stated"DRIVE THEM BACK INTO DARK SPACE."
It's not that the game told you you have to kill the reapers...It's just that you want to kill the reapers. That does not mean killing them should be the only way to stop them.

4.Synthesis is a question of advancement and end vs means. That question has been there form the start. It does not go ageints ME themes for being an option. It would only go ageints ME themes if it was the only choice on hand. It's not. If you don't like it, don't pick it.

1. Depends on the player. Some people also believe that the Crucible isn't an off-switch.

2. So let me ask you this. Was doing all the loyalty missions in ME2 and getting all the upgrades for the suicide mission so everybody survives an easy way out. No, because you put the time in to do all of that. So doing all the dlc and getting a super high EMS to complete the crucible and only destroy the Reapers would not be an easy way out. It would reward you for completing the dlc missions and building up a really high EMS. 

3. Yes the point was to stop the Reapers and in ME1 or ME2 they never specifcally stated that destroy was the only option back then but in ME3 when we learned of control being a possible way through TIM but no matter what your morality is the game makes you fight against him and the rest of Cerberus. That is my whole point. If they let us choose between Cerberus and the Alliance maybe our morality would have made played a real part.

4. I hear what you are saying but it does go against the theme of fighting to let people choose their own fate. Me choosing to rewrite everybody's DNA is not fighting for everybody to choose their own fate it is fighting for me to choose everybody's fate.

1. That does not mean bw did not try to brin gthe player to moral conflict.

2.The event on hand allowed for that to happen. Some tiem we can save everyone, some times we can't. Just because ME2 allowed for everyone to live means ME3 should. Heck, 3 people we savedin ME2 DIES IN me3.

3.We don't have to be forec to pick the alliance or cerberus. The thing you missing here is conflict with cerberus only happened because the tried to force there beliefs on us.

4.Here's the thing your missing. People have free will, bit that free will is hampered by the reality of what they have to do. We still have free will but we have not control over the world around us and the events we face. Are choices may cause and effect these event but we don't have full control over them. This is an issue of morality vs logic. You don't pick the optionsare given to you but you do have choice which of the options you pick. The ending does not conflict with free will, it starts the reality of it.

[KENNY4753]

dreman9999 wrote...

1. That does not mean bw did not try to brin gthe player to moral conflict.

2.The event on hand allowed for that to happen. Some tiem we can save everyone, some times we can't. Just because ME2 allowed for everyone to live means ME3 should. Heck, 3 people we savedin ME2 DIES IN me3.

3.We don't have to be forec to pick the alliance or cerberus. The thing you missing here is conflict with cerberus only happened because the tried to force there beliefs on us.

4.Here's the thing your missing. People have free will, bit that free will is hampered by the reality of what they have to do. We still have free will but we have not control over the world around us and the events we face. Are choices may cause and effect these event but we don't have full control over them. This is an issue of morality vs logic. You don't pick the optionsare given to you but you do have choice which of the options you pick. The ending does not conflict with free will, it starts the reality of it.

1. Besides that one trailer where they say multiple choices lie ahead, none of them easy where did they say that they intended moral conflict. Because that trailer doesn't necessarily mean they meant moral conflict. They could have meant that the choices were physically tough not morally. I'm just saying that that line in that trailer is open to interpretation.

2. but either way you wouldn't save everybody who took part in the Reaper war withy a complete crucible or not. People will still die (Anderson, almost all of hammer team, etc). And back to ME2, it was called a suicide mission, everybody wasn't supposed to have survived, but they made it so that if you took your time and became fully prepared  then you can save them all (who you choose for the parts on ther SM also count), so if it is possible on a suicide mission why is it impossible to have a completed super weapon. Either way we wouldn't save everybody.

3. yes they tried to force their beliefs on us and we were forced to disagree with them causing the conflict. If we agreed with them we should have been able to side with them whether they forced their beliefs or not.

4. but the point I made was synthesis goes against free will as does control if you think about it. In Control, we apparently brainwash the Repaers into doing what we want just like the Starbrat, the Reapers have no free will. In Synthesis, we change everybodies DNA. There is no free will involved in that choice either. Even Destroy has free will because both the Geth and EDI say they will give their lives to stop thye Reapers so they would be fine with dying in destroy but synthesis has no free will, and the Reapers just go from being brainwashed from one master to another. They have no free will either. So the choices conflict with everybodies free will but wee have free will to choose which iof the 3 we want, not what the rest of the galaxy wants

[dreman9999]

KENNY4753 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

1. That does not mean bw did not try to brin gthe player to moral conflict.

2.The event on hand allowed for that to happen. Some tiem we can save everyone, some times we can't. Just because ME2 allowed for everyone to live means ME3 should. Heck, 3 people we savedin ME2 DIES IN me3.

3.We don't have to be forec to pick the alliance or cerberus. The thing you missing here is conflict with cerberus only happened because the tried to force there beliefs on us.

4.Here's the thing your missing. People have free will, bit that free will is hampered by the reality of what they have to do. We still have free will but we have not control over the world around us and the events we face. Are choices may cause and effect these event but we don't have full control over them. This is an issue of morality vs logic. You don't pick the optionsare given to you but you do have choice which of the options you pick. The ending does not conflict with free will, it starts the reality of it.

1. Besides that one trailer where they say multiple choices lie ahead, none of them easy where did they say that they intended moral conflict. Because that trailer doesn't necessarily mean they meant moral conflict. They could have meant that the choices were physically tough not morally. I'm just saying that that line in that trailer is open to interpretation.

2. but either way you wouldn't save everybody who took part in the Reaper war withy a complete crucible or not. People will still die (Anderson, almost all of hammer team, etc). And back to ME2, it was called a suicide mission, everybody wasn't supposed to have survived, but they made it so that if you took your time and became fully prepared  then you can save them all (who you choose for the parts on ther SM also count), so if it is possible on a suicide mission why is it impossible to have a completed super weapon. Either way we wouldn't save everybody.

3. yes they tried to force their beliefs on us and we were forced to disagree with them causing the conflict. If we agreed with them we should have been able to side with them whether they forced their beliefs or not.

4. but the point I made was synthesis goes against free will as does control if you think about it. In Control, we apparently brainwash the Repaers into doing what we want just like the Starbrat, the Reapers have no free will. In Synthesis, we change everybodies DNA. There is no free will involved in that choice either. Even Destroy has free will because both the Geth and EDI say they will give their lives to stop thye Reapers so they would be fine with dying in destroy but synthesis has no free will, and the Reapers just go from being brainwashed from one master to another. They have no free will either. So the choices conflict with everybodies free will but wee have free will to choose which iof the 3 we want, not what the rest of the galaxy wants

1.:huh:If it not an easy choices then that inheritly means moral conflict. That's what makes them hard choices.

2.As I said before, sometime you can save every one, some times you can't. That does not mean you alway should have an option for both. Heck, in ME1 we can't even save everyone. That that nature of life.

3.That's not how that always works. Besides, you really want Cerberus it implant you with reaper tech and make you an indoctrinated slave?

4.Here's what your missing. If ou don't like synthesis, don't pick it. Having it ther as an option does not infer on free will, choosing it does. Added, partof the nature of control and order includes impossing you belief on others. It's up to you how you do it. It not bad if there is an option to abuse other peoples freedoms, it bad if you choise o do so. As long as you don't pick it, what's  the problem?

Modifié par dreman9999, 02 octobre 2012 - 07:18 .

[Nightwriter]

dreman9999 wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

First you say that because the Catalyst does not understand morality, there is no such thing as good or evil, and furthermore that this is the entire point of the series.

No that's not what I said. I did say it has no morality but it having no morality does not make morality pointless. What I said is the player can use any morality to stop it with the best out come as long as they use logic. 
What is said about the catalyst is that we can't say it's good or evil because it's in capable of understading morality.

... No, you flat out said: "The point of the ending was to point out there really is no inherit good or evil." That's a direct quote.

Here's another:

"Comprimsing with a compter in erroe show their is not inhertite good or evil. There was never any one truely good or evil in the series."

And "you can use any morality you want" sounds like more of that "paint your own rainbow" hooplah.

dreman9999 wrote...

What that means that the machine is not at fault for it's actions because it has no say to how it's programed.

"All we have learned is that there was no malicious intent on behalf of the perpetrator," yes.

dreman9999 wrote...

That does not mean we don't stop it. It just a concept of empathy. If a machine is a danger, do what ever youneed to do to stop it, but understand it's not at fault if it has no free will.

We didn't stop it. It "discovered" new ways to achieve its goal, and let us pick.

dreman9999 wrote...

That does not mean every being fallows the same morality or has a morality. The series bring up the point that every being is different and has a differnt perspective. Having something with out a moral does not counter that concept.

This doesn't really address how the Catalyst was disappointing for the reasons specified.

dreman9999 wrote...

Free will is alway crippled by reality and the things we have to do to live. The issue here is not that I don't think the player should have free will, it's that the player should not control what events they face.

No one is saying we should have control of that. All anyone is saying is we should be able to own our response.

When the antagonist hands you your responses, it's no surprise to not feel like you won.

dreman9999 wrote...

So what if the catalyst gives you a way of victory. You going to decline it because you have no control over it? We as being have no true control over the word around us except for ourselves. How we act. That is how life is. Life does not bend to our veiws or morality only which is why everyone say they don't like the ending because they are not given the choices they want is bs. Life is not about always getting what you want, it's about doing what you have to do.

Real life is an incoherent poorly written mess.

If you think this is how I want my game to be, you're quite mistaken.

If that's how you want your game to be, well... congratulations. But with all due respect, I don't think your tastes make for good entertainment.

dreman9999 wrote...

Heck, war is clearly about doing what you have to do. It's not about a sense of victory, it's about making sure the people you care about and galexy has a furture. That is about sacrific. So if you actions result in every character you care about living through this war, the reaper no longer destroy anything, and the galexy having a bright furture, does it matter how it's done in the extremes of war?

You sacrificed on Virmire. Great mission.

You sacrificed in BDtS. Great DLC.

You sacrificed in the genophage arc, the geth/quarian arc -- great chapters.

You sacrificed in the ending -- and it sucked.

I'm sorry, but the "this is war" argument is crap. The "that's sacrifice for you" argument is crap. The "sometimes things don't turn out perfect" argument is crap. These elements have been present to one degree or another throughout the entire series, and people accepted them, even applauded them. Sooner or later you're going to need to acknowledge what we're saying: that the ending's problems are bigger than sacrifice and realism.

Modifié par Nightwriter, 02 octobre 2012 - 07:19 .

[The Spamming Troll]

dreman9999 wrote...

The Spamming Troll wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

The Spamming Troll wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

The catalyst has no morality, It has no concept of good or evil. It's just a machine doing what it's programed to do.

so how do we turn the catalyst off?

riddle me that.

You shot the pipe.

its like you intentionaly miss the point.

as if shooting the pipe doesnt whipe out an entire race of people. i jsut want a button that stops the catalyst, so i can go on with my life and not argue about a non-issue with a machine thats as dissilusioned as you are. actually i never even argued with it. he said heres what you do, i said ok. and the credits rolled.

What was stated in the ME1 AD....Many choices lie ahead, none of them easy...


War has consiquences. You can't always take the hight road.

its funny that you bring this clip up. whenever i bring this clip up im pointing out how bad that concept was through out the trilogy.  we were LUCKY if the choices we made, made any difference in the overall story arch or if the decisions that meant most to us werent simply retconed or handwaved. the choices we made only mattered up untill the next games release.

but here you are using the clip to proove to me the geth had to die at the end of ME3, atleast i think thats whats your showing me this for. like im unaware of consequences. its as if you think i dont want consequences!

im almost pissed off that youd even think of using that awesome ME1 advert as a reason why ME3 totally makes sense. how dare you!

[KENNY4753]

dreman9999 wrote...
1.:huh:If it not an easy choices then that inheritly means moral conflict. That's what makes them hard choices.

2.As I said before, sometime you can save every one, some times you can't. That does not mean you alway should have an option for both. Heck, in ME1 we can't even save everyone. That that nature of life.

3.That's not how that always works. Besides, you really want Cerberus it implant you with reaper tech and make you an indoctrinated slave?

4.Here's what your missing. If ou don't like synthesis, don't pick it. Having it ther as an option does not infer on free will, choosing it does. Added, partof the nature of control and order includes impossing you belief on others. It's up to you how you do it. It not bad if there is an option to abuse other peoples freedoms, it bad if you choise o do so. As long as you don't pick it, what's  the problem?

1. No if it is a physically tough choice it doesn't have to be a morally tough choice. Just because something takes a physical tole doesn't mean moral conflict is the main theme.

2. Exactly. and in ME2 you can't save everybody either (Samara/Morinth), and in ME3 even if you got a fully complete crucible then you still wouldn't save everybody (Anderson, Hammer Team, multiple other war assets)

3. If you agree with their methods than yes you would. I personally don't but the choice is still there. And Kai Leng was still himself (not some repaer husk) and he was with Cerberus.

4. I know that. I hate synthesis so I won't ever pick it. And you just repeated what I said. By choosing it you take away others free will. That is exactly what I said earlier and you are argued it. Unless you didn't understand my ewarlier post or just trying take what I said and turn it against me then idk what you are talking about. I have stated before that choosing synthesis takes everybodies free will and throws it out the airlock, so I personally don't think they should have included it. If people like that then that is their opinion.

[dreman9999]

Nightwriter wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

First you say that because the Catalyst does not understand morality, there is no such thing as good or evil, and furthermore that this is the entire point of the series.

No that's not what I said. I did say it has no morality but it having no morality does not make morality pointless. What I said is the player can use any morality to stop it with the best out come as long as they use logic. 
What is said about the catalyst is that we can't say it's good or evil because it's in capable of understading morality.

... No, you flat out said: "The point of the ending was to point out there really is no inherit good or evil." That's a direct quote.

Here's another:

"Comprimsing with a compter in erroe show their is not inhertite good or evil. There was never any one truely good or evil in the series."

And "you can use any morality you want" sounds like more of that "paint your own rainbow" hooplah.

dreman9999 wrote...

What that means that the machine is not at fault for it's actions because it has no say to how it's programed.

"All we have learned is that there was no malicious intent on behalf of the perpetrator."

dreman9999 wrote...

That does not mean we don't stop it. It just a concept of empathy. If a machine is a danger, do what ever youneed to do to stop it, but understand it's not at fault if it has no free will.

We didn't stop it. It "discovered" new ways to achieve its goal, and let us pick.

dreman9999 wrote...

That does not mean every being fallows the same morality or has a morality. The series bring up the point that every being is different and has a differnt perspective. Having something with out a moral does not counter that concept.

This doesn't really address how the Catalyst was disappointing for the reasons specified.

dreman9999 wrote...

Free will is alway crippled by reality and the things we have to do to live. The issue here is not that I don't think the player should have free will, it's that the player should not control what events they face.

No one is saying we should have control of that. All anyone is saying is we should be able to own our response.

When the antagonist hands you your responses, it's no surprise to not feel like you won.

dreman9999 wrote...

So what if the catalyst gives you a way of victory. You going to decline it because you have no control over it? We as being have no true control over the word around us except for ourselves. How we act. That is how life is. Life does not bend to our veiws or morality only which is why everyone say they don't like the ending because they are not given the choices they want is bs. Life is not about always getting what you want, it's about doing what you have to do.

Real life is an incoherent poorly written mess.

If you think this is how I want my game to be, you're quite mistaken.

If that's how you want your game to be, well... congratulations. But with all due respect, I don't think your tastes make for good entertainment.

dreman9999 wrote...

Heck, war is clearly about doing what you have to do. It's not about a sense of victory, it's about making sure the people you care about and galexy has a furture. That is about sacrific. So if you actions result in every character you care about living through this war, the reaper no longer destroy anything, and the galexy having a bright furture, does it matter how it's done in the extremes of war?

You sacrificed on Virmire. Great mission.

You sacrificed in BDtS. Great DLC.

You sacrificed in the genophage arc, the geth/quarian arc -- great chapters.

You sacrificed in the ending -- and it sucked.

I'm sorry, but the "this is war" argument is crap. The "that's sacrifice for you" argument is crap. The "sometimes thing don't turn out perfect" argument is crap. These elements have been present to one degree or another throughout the entire series, and people accepted them, even applauded them. Sooner or later you're going to need to acknowledge what we're saying: that the ending's problems are bigger than sacrifice and realism.

1.That does not mean morality is pointless. It means ther is no absoult awnser. No absolute correct way. That does not mean there is not morals. It just means nothing is black or white.

2.That still mean it's not at fault. If it's just doing waht it's programed to do, that mean it can be held in a case of moralality.

3.Destory and control is not new way to get to its goal. Synthesis is. We only help it if we pick synthesis.Remeber, it's goal is to perserve all lifr. Destroy and control conflict with it.

4.Yes it does. You want to have a way to destroy it with no compromise. The fact that you do upsets you. The fact of the matter is it the only way and you want to control the event in a way that you don't have to comprimise.

5.It's not about feeling that you won, it's about stopping it.

6.A story inheritly is made so it's simular to reality. If reality is an incoherent poorly written mess, story will fallow that concept to be more real.

7.The only reaso why you're saying the sacrific is in the end of ME3 is  crap because you want the ending done you way. You don't get to choose what you face, not in a game or in life.
And if it the endings problem is bigger than sacrifice and realism, then you need to understand that all you complaint cover the issues of sacrifice and realism. 

Modifié par dreman9999, 02 octobre 2012 - 07:38 .

[dreman9999]

KENNY4753 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
1.:huh:If it not an easy choices then that inheritly means moral conflict. That's what makes them hard choices.

2.As I said before, sometime you can save every one, some times you can't. That does not mean you alway should have an option for both. Heck, in ME1 we can't even save everyone. That that nature of life.

3.That's not how that always works. Besides, you really want Cerberus it implant you with reaper tech and make you an indoctrinated slave?

4.Here's what your missing. If ou don't like synthesis, don't pick it. Having it ther as an option does not infer on free will, choosing it does. Added, partof the nature of control and order includes impossing you belief on others. It's up to you how you do it. It not bad if there is an option to abuse other peoples freedoms, it bad if you choise o do so. As long as you don't pick it, what's  the problem?

1. No if it is a physically tough choice it doesn't have to be a morally tough choice. Just because something takes a physical tole doesn't mean moral conflict is the main theme.

2. Exactly. and in ME2 you can't save everybody either (Samara/Morinth), and in ME3 even if you got a fully complete crucible then you still wouldn't save everybody (Anderson, Hammer Team, multiple other war assets)

3. If you agree with their methods than yes you would. I personally don't but the choice is still there. And Kai Leng was still himself (not some repaer husk) and he was with Cerberus.

4. I know that. I hate synthesis so I won't ever pick it. And you just repeated what I said. By choosing it you take away others free will. That is exactly what I said earlier and you are argued it. Unless you didn't understand my ewarlier post or just trying take what I said and turn it against me then idk what you are talking about. I have stated before that choosing synthesis takes everybodies free will and throws it out the airlock, so I personally don't think they should have included it. If people like that then that is their opinion.

1....What physiclly tough choice are in a video game? Or even in ME?

3.So you who says that you're upset that the game ending does not give you more choices is say that you want to have the choice to have no free will?

4.But your missing my point. It's not bad for having it there. Every time you talk  abiout synthesis, it sounds like you have a problem with it just exsisting. Having it exsist does not conflict free will.

[dreman9999]

The Spamming Troll wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

The Spamming Troll wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

The Spamming Troll wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

The catalyst has no morality, It has no concept of good or evil. It's just a machine doing what it's programed to do.

so how do we turn the catalyst off?

riddle me that.

You shot the pipe.

its like you intentionaly miss the point.

as if shooting the pipe doesnt whipe out an entire race of people. i jsut want a button that stops the catalyst, so i can go on with my life and not argue about a non-issue with a machine thats as dissilusioned as you are. actually i never even argued with it. he said heres what you do, i said ok. and the credits rolled.

What was stated in the ME1 AD....Many choices lie ahead, none of them easy...


War has consiquences. You can't always take the hight road.

its funny that you bring this clip up. whenever i bring this clip up im pointing out how bad that concept was through out the trilogy.  we were LUCKY if the choices we made, made any difference in the overall story arch or if the decisions that meant most to us werent simply retconed or handwaved. the choices we made only mattered up untill the next games release.

but here you are using the clip to proove to me the geth had to die at the end of ME3, atleast i think thats whats your showing me this for. like im unaware of consequences. its as if you think i dont want consequences!

im almost pissed off that youd even think of using that awesome ME1 advert as a reason why ME3 totally makes sense. how dare you!

Troll...You so wrong on this it's not even funny...
http://penny-arcade....enriching-lives

[The Spamming Troll]

ill pass.

good luck to you, good sir!

[KENNY4753]

dreman9999 wrote...
1....What physiclly tough choice are in a video game? Or even in ME?

3.So you who says that you're upset that the game ending does not give you more choices is say that you want to have the choice to have no free will?

4.But your missing my point. It's not bad for having it there. Every time you talk  abiout synthesis, it sounds like you have a problem with it just exsisting. Having it exsist does not conflict free will.

1. Dying in the end if you choose control, synthesis, and argueably destroy. I'm not saying physically tough for the player but for Shepard. And don't play the moral confict card, Shepard goes through physical pain no matter what, that is what I meant.

3. Yes the game doesn't give you too many choices or make your choices matter too much but I am saying that if somebody agrees with Cerberus then they should have the free will to choose to side with them. You are trying to twist my comment into contradicting itself. Just because you would side with Cerberus doesn't mean you will become a mindless husk (Kai Leng and Dr. Eva didn't)

4. No I am not missing your point. I have heard what you had to say and taken it into consideration. Your are right that I don't like synthesis being there that is correct but choosing it takes away everybody's free will therefore since ME was about fighting for people to choose their own fate it shouldn't have been in the game IMO. The fact that they included it, is whatever because I will never choose it. People do have the free will to choose it, I have never stated otherwise. I have stated that one multiple occassions but you do not seem to be understanding that.

[The Spamming Troll]

Master Che wrote...

The Spamming Troll wrote...

its like you intentionaly miss the point.

as if shooting the pipe doesnt whipe out an entire race of people. i jsut want a button that stops the catalyst, so i can go on with my life and not argue about a non-issue with a machine thats as dissilusioned as you are. actually i never even argued with it. he said heres what you do, i said ok. and the credits rolled.

1) Geth are not "people".
2) The options only exist because of the crucible. 
3) I have a button for you...F7   *runs away*

1. "people" arent just human. or atleast ive always felt the word people can be used for any grouping of individuals. like in the movie avatar, nehteri calls the navi her people. but its not important.
2. wheres the button on the crucible to turn off just the catalyst? thats all i want to know. just the button that deletes the catalyst. it should be on there, hell it probably is but hes not telling us. as stupid as i sound saing that out loud, how is it possible to know. the only one who knows is frakin dead as soon as the credits roll. WTF, man. my head just exploded because of stupid.
3. ill leave you to speculate about this.

Modifié par The Spamming Troll, 02 octobre 2012 - 07:53 .

[Vigilant111]

@ Dreman: Even though morality is subjective, a common moral standard must be maintained

The Catalyst is not a simple puppet controlled by the Leviathans, it has sufficient free will to turn against its own creators

BTW, I do not understand the last point you made to Nightwriter

Modifié par Vigilant111, 02 octobre 2012 - 07:55 .

[dreman9999]

KENNY4753 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
1....What physiclly tough choice are in a video game? Or even in ME?

3.So you who says that you're upset that the game ending does not give you more choices is say that you want to have the choice to have no free will?

4.But your missing my point. It's not bad for having it there. Every time you talk  abiout synthesis, it sounds like you have a problem with it just exsisting. Having it exsist does not conflict free will.

1. Dying in the end if you choose control, synthesis, and argueably destroy. I'm not saying physically tough for the player but for Shepard. And don't play the moral confict card, Shepard goes through physical pain no matter what, that is what I meant.

3. Yes the game doesn't give you too many choices or make your choices matter too much but I am saying that if somebody agrees with Cerberus then they should have the free will to choose to side with them. You are trying to twist my comment into contradicting itself. Just because you would side with Cerberus doesn't mean you will become a mindless husk (Kai Leng and Dr. Eva didn't)

4. No I am not missing your point. I have heard what you had to say and taken it into consideration. Your are right that I don't like synthesis being there that is correct but choosing it takes away everybody's free will therefore since ME was about fighting for people to choose their own fate it shouldn't have been in the game IMO. The fact that they included it, is whatever because I will never choose it. People do have the free will to choose it, I have never stated otherwise. I have stated that one multiple occassions but you do not seem to be understanding that.

1.But that still is an example of moral conflict there. No one really want there Shepard to die. Not wanting to die and finding out the choice to stop the reapers form destroying everyone is moral conflict.

3.I'm sorry but it waswell made clear that the only people TIM wanted fighting for him he wants indoctrianted. Yoube losing your free will to work for him.

4.Even it you say you get what I'm saying your still not getting it. If there is no issue with people picking it, why have issue with it?